There are two prevalent models for electronic bill presentment that are currently used in industry. The first is an aggregation model 10, which is shown in FIG. 1. In its simplest form, the aggregation model 10 includes a customer 12, an aggregator 14, and a plurality of billers 16. The customer 12 can be, for example, an individual person, a family, or a business. The aggregator 14 can be a financial institution (FI) such as, for example, a bank. Alternatively, the aggregator 14 can be a separate entity which acts of behalf of a sponsor 18, which can also be an FI such as a bank. Each biller 16 can be of any billing institution type such as, for example, a local telephone company, a local electric company, a retail outlet, or a national long distance telephone company.
Each biller 16 provides customer-related invoice data to the aggregator 14. The aggregator 14 serves as an intermediary between each biller 16 and the customer 12 by providing bill presentment directly to the customer 12, potentially on behalf of the sponsor 18.
There are two variants of the aggregation model 10 resulting from the ownership, or “branding”, of the presentation experience and the communication channel between the aggregator 14 and the customer 12. In one variant, the aggregator 14 may offer aggregator branding, thus totally owning both the presentation experience and the communication channel between the aggregator 14 and the customer 12. In the other variant, the aggregator 14 may offer sponsor-branding, thus staying “behind the scenes” in terms of the presentation experience and supporting the communication channel between the aggregator 14 and the customer 12 on behalf of the sponsor 18.
The second prevalent model for electronic bill presentment is a biller direct model 20, which is shown in FIG. 2. In its simplest form, the biller direct model 20 includes a customer 12 and at least one biller 16. In the biller direct model 20, each biller 16 retains the customer-related invoice data and the full relationship with the customer 12 (i.e., the presentation experience and the communication channel). The customer 12 may have software for providing a capability similar to Web browser bookmarking so as to allow easy navigation between billers, and thus some level of virtual aggregation. However, there is no actual aggregation such as with the aggregator 14 of the aggregation model 10 described above.
The above-described models present a dichotomy between a sponsor-centric view and a biller-centric view of bill presentment. That is, the aggregation model 10 allows the aggregator 14 and/or the sponsor 18 to use customer-related invoice data, bill presentment, and the communication channel between the aggregator 14 and the customer 12 for cross-selling or other peripheral services. The biller direct model 20, on the other hand, insures that control of customer-related invoice data, bill presentment, and the communication channel between the biller 16 and the customer 12 remains with the biller 16.
Also, neither of the above-described models adopt a truly customer-centric view. That is, neither of the above-described models allow a customer 12 to interact directly with individual billers 16 while retaining the benefits of interacting with a single aggregator 14 such as, for example, the ability to retain a single authentication and log-in procedure and a common bill presentation framework. Further, neither of the above-described models allow a customer 12 to retain the benefits of interacting with a single aggregator 14 while allowing the aggregator 14, billers 16, and sponsor 18 to retain certain preferences such as, for example, the ability to retain control of customer-related data and a communication channel with each customer 12. Accordingly, it would be desirable to provide a distributed data accessing technique which addresses the above-mentioned shortcomings of the above-described models.